J. W. Murray

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

During the union's organizing campaign, the employer announced new benefits, supported the formation of an in-plant employee committee, held captive audience meetings where the general manager claimed he was 'stabbed in the back', supported an anti-union petition, and failed to recall a union supporter from lay-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer committed multiple violations of sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the cumulative effect of these unfair labour practices, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and compensation for the un-recalled employee.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire (a petition) opposing the union.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found inconsistencies in the evidence of the employee who circulated the petition, including his failure to disclose leaving work early on the days he mailed the petition and related letters.

The Board concluded the objectors failed to discharge the onus of proving the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board certified the union, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description regarding certain disputed positions.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by reclassifying an employee to a lower wage category.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the matter was res judicata as two prior Board decisions had already interpreted the identical collective agreement provision to apply only to lay-offs, not reclassifications.

The Board agreed, finding that the prior decisions were binding and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing mass termination notices to bargaining unit employees shortly after the union was certified.

The union argued the terminations were motivated by anti-union animus and violated the statutory freeze period under section 79.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 66 complaints, finding the terminations were driven by legitimate economic justifications and a pre-existing modernization plan, not anti-union animus.

Regarding the statutory freeze, the Board applied a 'reasonable expectations' test and held that the mass layoffs in the processing function did not violate section 79, as employees could reasonably expect layoffs during a severe economic downturn.

However, the Board found that contracting out the drapery workroom functions violated the freeze period, as it introduced a new method of operation outside the employees' reasonable expectations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board determined that the application was timely, finding that a prior memorandum of agreement established the true term of the collective agreement.

The Board accepted the employee petition as a voluntary signification that they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

Finding that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had signed the petition, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of full-time and part-time sales staff at the respondent's retail store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions, except for the sales staff in the newly created Business Centre.

The respondent argued that the Business Centre staff should be excluded due to their specialized skills, distinct commission structure, and flexible hours.

The Board rejected this argument, noting its policy against fragmented, departmental bargaining units.

The Board found that the differences in working conditions were matters of degree and that the Business Centre staff shared sufficient community of interest with the broader sales unit.

Certificates were issued for the agreed-upon full-time and part-time units.

The complainant, a unionized painter, alleged that his union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job opening at a company where he had previously worked.

The union's business manager had referred other out-of-work members who had established relationships with the company and had been part of its crew in the previous season.

The Board found that the hiring hall was not operated on a strict 'first in, first out' basis, and that the business manager's exercise of discretion in balancing various equitable factors was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated voting procedures under the Labour Relations Act during a contract ratification meeting.

The union presented a combined ballot asking employees to either accept the company's final offer or authorize a strike, and refused requests to split the ballot.

The Board found that the union was entitled to structure the ballot to reflect the collective bargaining reality and bring negotiations to a head.

The Board also dismissed allegations of intimidation and found that, despite defects in the notice of the meeting, no employees were deprived of the opportunity to vote.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding whether a franchise transfer constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant presented no substantial and material new evidence or arguments.

The Board clarified that its prior decision found the franchise was terminated, not transferred, and thus did not determine the legal effect of a franchise transfer under section 63.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Although the union filed membership cards for 68% of the bargaining unit, a group of employees filed a timely statement in opposition (petition).

The Board held an inquiry into the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found that the main proponent of the petition had openly established a link between the petition and company management in the minds of employees, creating a reasonable fear that management would learn who signed.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition and granted outright certification based on the membership evidence.